@Claus,
True. I guess using a bean in that case should be acceptable. It's
not 1-to-1 translation of the dsl, but should it be?
Hadrian
On Aug 22, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Fintan Bolton wrote:
Hi Claus,
If using a static method inside process(...), it might be clearer to
give it
a more explicit name. For example:
from(...).process(copyInToOut());
-
Fintan
-----Original Message-----
Hi
The static solution is neat however it is not avail for the Spring XML
routing.
But I like the idea, but is the echo name a common pattern / term
for such a
copy-in-to-out? I think Mule has a similar component also. So it
might not
be to bad to introduce.
Maybe it will be obsolete if the camel components is smarter / more
strict
about the MEP patterns the support/use.
Med venlig hilsen
Claus Ibsen
......................................
Silverbullet
Skovsgårdsvænget 21
8362 Hørning
Tlf. +45 2962 7576
Web: www.silverbullet.dk
-----Original Message-----
From: Hadrian Zbarcea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21. august 2008 18:32
To: camel-user@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: echo() processor
The DSL is big as it is. We add to it integration patterns, but my
personal preference would be to not add things like echo(). I would
more in favor of having it a (static) method that returns a processor,
so one would use it like:
from(...).process(echo());
My $0.02,
Hadrian
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/echo%28%29-processor-tp19086322s22882p19104719.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
